2nd Amendment Attorney Wanted

Abulg1972 said:

I don't know what any of you do for a living, but let's assume you are a mechanic and let's assume further that my car broke down. The above is like me saying, you should fix my car for free because you fix cars. Bullsh*t. I need to feed my family and I can't tie up all my resources and time because you got caught with a bunch of drugs and machine guns.

Click to expand...

Nitpick here - I think this is a bad analogy. There's not right to a working car. I think a doctor's practice might be closer. Should a doctor set a broken bone for someone who can't pay? I think in the end, most would. But, that's not an on-going court-fee-sucking situation. I was just picking something that wasn't life-threatening as an example. Going back to the broken bone...would any/many do the work it if required an orthopedic surgeon to do his/her voodoo?

Taurus454 said:

...snip...
POINT THREE. Now let us assume that a gang of government gun-grabbers decided that I just had too many guns. Heck, the lead Sheriff stated under oath, "I wanted those guns" and that I had an "absurd amount of guns" and no American citizen needs that many guns. Heck, I heard the currently elected Sheriff make the offhand comment, "what is he going to do with that many guns, take us on" as my guns were returned to me by Court Order. Remember, this is how LEOs view guns in the hands of Americans, as instruments for use against them and so many of the People wonder why LEOs testify for gun control!

...more snip...

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this at least in part. I'm certainly no expert, but the wording of your statement means "all." That is not the case. I think most officers and deputies actually believe in and honor the 2A. Look at the sheriffs who testified against FSA2013.

The ones you are referencing are hired/appointed and serve at the pleasure of their overlords like a city council, mayor, governor, etc and are either of like-mind or are know how to keep their jobs. For example, from what I've read, the Balt. County Police commissioner (whatever his title is) is no fan of the 2A, but most of the officers who serve under him are. Sheriffs - you get what you elect. Compare and contrast sheriffs like the ones in Maryland who publicly tell the gun grabbers to pound sand and David Clarke from Milwaukee to the sheriff in San Francisco. World apart.

jc1240 said:

Nitpick here - I think this is a bad analogy. There's not right to a working car. I think a doctor's practice might be closer. Should a doctor set a broken bone for someone who can't pay? I think in the end, most would. But, that's not an on-going court-fee-sucking situation. I was just picking something that wasn't life-threatening as an example. Going back to the broken bone...would any/many do the work it if required an orthopedic surgeon to do his/her voodoo?

Click to expand...

You missed the point. My point was this: he's asking a person engaged in a particular business activity to provide services for free, or on a hope and prayer that payment might be had. The fact that this particular request involves a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm is a red herring. Lawyers are lawyers to make a living. Mechanics are mechanics to make a living. Both need to pay bills, feed children, etc. He's asking a lawyer to take on a hugely time-consuming and expensive case with no assurance that the lawyer will ever be paid, and he seems to think that he's entitled to that service because of the troubles he's been through and his veteran status. That's just not how the world works. It's one thing to hope that someone will take pity on him and take the case for altruistic reasons. It's another thing to expect that someone will take the case and, when no one does, call all lawyers money-grubbing scoundrels.

Abulg1972 said:

You missed the point. My point was this: he's asking a person engaged in a particular business activity to provide services for free, or on a hope and prayer that payment might be had. The fact that this particular request involves a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm is a red herring. Lawyers are lawyers to make a living. Mechanics are mechanics to make a living. Both need to pay bills, feed children, etc. He's asking a lawyer to take on a hugely time-consuming and expensive case with no assurance that the lawyer will ever be paid, and he seems to think that he's entitled to that service because of the troubles he's been through and his veteran status. That's just not how the world works. It's one thing to hope that someone will take pity on him and take the case for altruistic reasons. It's another thing to expect that someone will take the case and, when no one does, call all lawyers money-grubbing scoundrels.

Click to expand...

I got it (and understand). Like I wrote - it was a nitpick. While I've done the deeds of my profession for free for some folks I certainly don't make it a habit and I certainly don't absorb any costs (parts and such) if there are any.

jrumann59 said:

While probably true, NRA could also be treating MD pretty much as a lost cause and only willing to hit slam dunks. It sounds sad but it is true.

Click to expand...

Let's see. The NRA was not willing to support a referendum in Maryland, and it is not willing to support a court challenge to the HQL that resulted from the FSA2013. However, it did back the Kolbe case, which I think is all that Maryland has left to pray for when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Abulg1972 said:

Beat the system. Having all charges nol prossed due to the evidence being suppressed rather than spending 100 years in jail. I'd pay $600,000 for that any day of the week. As Charlie Sheen would say, winning!

Click to expand...

It appears to me that you don't understand that having a case thrown out because of a Fourth Amendment violation isn't "beating the system", it's the system working as-intended. If you don't understand that I think you have a serious problem.

Blacksmith101 said:

Try the ACLU they are all for civil rights.

Click to expand...

Lol, best joke I've heard in some time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Abulg1972 said:

He wasn't exonerated. It was found that his 4th Amendment rights had been violated and the evidence supporting the state's case was deemed inadmissible. In light of that finding, the state decided, smartly, to "nol pros" the case. That not "exoneration". That's called "beating the system."

Click to expand...

So when the LE violates a law they are still right and the accused is guilty. He didn't beat the system the LE agencies violated the law that is the foundation of the system. I see an inoccent man that was arrested in a manner that violates his civil rights and you see a criminal beating the system. Unbelievable.

DaemonAssassin said:

Allow me to rephrase. If the NRA isn't helping support his litigation, then they know it is a waste of money, because they know there is almost no chance of a win.

Click to expand...

Isn't it also possible that the NRA has determined that the Fourth Amendment violation that resulted in a dismissal of the case, did not necessarily mean that the OP did not violate the law with respect to possession of the items they were looking for? Is it really a 2A issue?

It needs to be re-cast as a "social justice" case.

edit:

You guys have issues. Trying to make issues where they don't exist. For purposes of my postings, the system is the state. When the state brings a case against you and you prevail, you've "beat the system." When the state effects and unlawful search and seizure and you are successful at getting the fruits of their search suppressed, I say you "beat the system." If you want to ignore the point I was making and argue semantics, I'm not interested. You presume he was innocent. I say it's possible that he was not innocent but that the state was unable to prove its case because the manner in which it obtained its evidence was deemed to be unlawful. If you can't understand that, you have serious issues and have not seen a crime show. No one knows what actually happened because the OP won't tell us.


This thread is old and tired. I will leave the continuation of any fun here to you.

Abulg1972 said:

You guys have issues. Trying to make issues where they don't exist. For purposes of my postings, the system is the state. When the state brings a case against you and you prevail, you've "beat the system." When is state effects and unlawful search and seizure and you are successful at getting the fruits of their search suppressed, I say you "beat the system." If you want to ignore the point I was making and argue semantics, I'm not interested. You presume he was innocent. I say it's possible that he was not innocent but the state was unable to prove its case because the manner in which it obtained it's evidence was deemed to be unlawful. If you can't understand that, you have serious issues and have not seen a crime show. No one knows what actually happened because the OP won't tell us.


This thread is old and tired. I will leave the continuation of any fun here to you.

Click to expand...

If that's what you meant, then I'll take your word for it and I'm fine with it. But to a vast majority of people, the phrase "beat the system" unequivocally implies guilt.

Abulg1972 said:

. No one knows what actually happened because the OP won't tell us.


This thread is old and tired. I will leave the continuation of any fun here to you.

Click to expand...

This is the most important line in the thread I think. An unknown person has arrived, told half a story and stirred a pile of poo. We're done here.